/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10086558
Fuck off.

>>10086572
>Fuck off.
Do you need to swear?

>>10086558
Okay what is your point?
That anyone who is making conclusions on things without evidence isn't practicing the scientific method?
Yeah you're right Einstein is full of shit.

>>10086587
Yeah good point, what is the evidence that space itself has any properties at all?

>>10086725
We can observe it. That’s how.

>>10086558
>I didnt see my friend masturbate in his room yesterday
>therefore he didnt masturbate in his room yesterday

>>10086558
P(B|A) = P(B n A) / P(A)

your negation 'A is just zero, division by zero, hidden by nonsense.

>>10086805
What people don’t understand is that absense of evidence can be evidence of absence or it can not be depending on the context. If I don’t see a tiger in my living room, that is evidence that a tiger isn’t in my living room. But a tardigrade?

>>10086558
NO.

>>10086731
We can observe space, therefore it has properties? I can observe a shadow, but it is only a lack of light. See the problem?

We can observe that special and general relativity produce results which are accurate beyond alternative theories. But they are predicated on a nonsensical assumption that space has properties.

>>10086558
That's fucking stupid, what princ>>10086805
iple would defend this

>>10086558
Retarded shit made by a retarded physicist. Check out the creator of this shit, Kim Oyhus

>>10087001
>Look at my appeal to personal incredulity fallacy I’m so smart

Fuck off. “Lol Dur spacetim cent hav property das dum”

>>10086558

>>10086558
"Is" is the wrong word to use there.
"Can be" should be used instead. What you need is a definite understanding of what kind of evidence you are looking for and how likely you would be to find such evidence if it existed.

>>10087001
>lack of light has no properties
You can always do us a favor and kys

>>10086558
bayesian brainlet should unironically kill themselves

[math]P(B \uparrow A) > P(B \uparrow \neg A)\Leftrightarrow 1 - P(\neg B \uparrow A) > 1- P(\neg B \uparrow \neg A)[/math]
not how it fucking works I'm afraid

>>10086558
Absence of evidence simply leaves us with the null hypothesis. It says nothing more that our already extant ignorance.

>>10086558
There is no evidence of extra terrestrial life yet a majority here believe there’s life beyond earth. Who is illogical? us, or the ones who think we’re alone?

>>10087785
The one's who think we're alone.

>>10087789
We have no evidence of extra terrestrial life. If the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, why are we logical?

>>10087785
>believes in aliens
>doesn’t believe in God
Turbocringe

>>10087792
logic is logic where does evidence come in?
1+1=2 because 1+1=2 not because we have evidence that 1+1=2

>>10086558
Your definitions are wrong. You define absence of evidence and absence as the same thing to begin with.

They're different when you don't have access to all the evidence, but they are the same when you do.

>>10087798
Logic based on what? We use numbers to represent amounts of quantity for concepts and ideas we have created. 1 rock and another rock make multiple rocks and it’s quantity is 2. We use logic with evidence that seems so logical that we often forget its real basis and instead think of it as a “duh, you should know this” and you are seeming to forget that it is ultimately still bound by evidence, whether you like it or hate it. Also, the math bullshit is just like the evidence people try to use to justify god. Give me evidence of extra terrestrial life or shut up and acknowledge we are all biased

>>10086805
You're confusing evidence with proof

>I know he was at the scene of the crime
>therefore he's guilty

>>10086823
Why is P(~A) = 0?

>>10087793
Aliens are possible because we are possible. There is no suggestion God is possible.

Fuck off.

>>10087819
We’re the evidence of alien life, dumbass.

>>10087819
Given all the evidence, aliens exist. Prove me wrong.

>>10086558
>Probability that B is false regardless of A or that B is true and A is false
>greater than
>Probability that B is false regardless of A or that B is true and A is true
what did he mean by this?

>>10086558
>Math and numbers.
Whatever.
Yes, absence of immediate evidence can be evidence of absence, but not proof. Refutation or denial of a claim is itself a claim, and carries a burden of proof of its own.

Sometimes you just have to accept that there are things you can't evaluate, and just leave loose ends hanging.

>>10087829
Consciousness and the idea of the universe starting from nothing are valid reasons to suggest that we might have been created
>>10087831
>>10087830
Me having a lifesize Tionishia futanari sex doll with artificial muscles and built in cum pumps means that there must be another person out there with it?

>>10087059
That doesn't work, the negation of B isn't the non-detection of B. Absence of evidence means evidence is undetected but absence in the second half means non-existence.

>>10087849
Consciousness and the idea of the universe starting from nothing are valid reasons to suggest that we might have been created

Nope.

>Me having a lifesize Tionishia futanari sex doll with artificial muscles and built in cum pumps means that there must be another person out there with it?

Not a result of natural processes.

>>10087106
The only time it isn't is when the probability of having evidence is 0 or 1.

>>10087849
No but "life" isn't that specific, you having a sex doll means somewhere, someone else probably has one too. Am I wrong?

>>10087858
What’s the difference between natural processes and creations through the intelligent design unless you believe there’s something more to conscious creators?

>>10087735
That's basic algebra anon...

>>10087865
Are we talking about life using our earthly definitions, or are we talking about a broad definition that would certainly change should we see life elsewhere? If it’s the broad definition, yes. I would give you credit. However, the intricate systems involving proteins, our DNA, cellular mechanisms, and ability to reproduce are most certainly more advance than any sexdoll we have made

>>10087785
That depends on the probability of aliens and the probability of finding evidence of aliens.

>>10087866
Creators can design things that could never form naturally like shoes, cars, or municipal areas. If life formed naturally here, there’s no reason it can’t appear somewhere else on any of the other quintillions of planets.

>>10087871
Same could be said with any deity

>>10087874
Where’s your evidence it can’t form naturaly?

>>10087875
No, because deities aren’t possible in known physics. Aliens are.

>>10087838
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>10087870
life only has a few general criteria to be considered life and none of them require life to be complex or even made or proteins
there is only one definition of life, your preconceived notions are not accurate

>metabolism
>homeostasis
>reproduction
>something else
>something else again

>>10087881
They’re made of processed materials that don’t form naturally dumbass

>>10087875
And?

>>10087884
Reacting to the environment, growing, and organized into cells or something like that.

>>10087887
Source? If this universe is so large, there has to be some planet that has them. Am I right? Isn’t this the same idea with extra terrestrial life?

>>10087868
>>10087883
'|' is NAND in boolean logic, or [math]\neg (B \wedge A) \Leftrightarrow \neg B \vee \neg A[/math]

>>10087895
No. Natural processes can not create cars, shoes, or municipal areas. Only already advanced animals could or would. Probability doesn’t allow for impossible things to happen, only possible ones.

>>10087908
I fail to see how it is impossible

>>10086572
>>10086860
Not an argument

>>10087911
Then you’re retarded.

>>10087915
It exists. Therefore, it could exist elsewhere. Right?

>>10087921
No, shithead.

Absence of evidence is not the negation of evidence. The negation of evidence is evidence does not exist. The absence of evidence is evidence does not currently exist.

>>10087925
Where’s your proof?

>>10086558
Definitions are wrong. This is the 1=2 equation but for people who don't know how to read set notation and therefore see a lot of lines of math symbols and think the end is right.
Nice job abusing people who probably opted into linear algebra instead of calc 3 at best.

>>10087904
OK and you realize this is conditional probability right?

>>10087929
Go study erosion.

>>10087933
That’s good evidence right there

>>10087927
The definition of evidence is an event that when given as true increases the probability of B. Thus the negation of evidence is an event which does not when given as true increase the probability of B. So for your argument to work the absence of evidence must increase the probability of B. How does it do that?

>>10087930
How are they wrong?

>>10087932
I realize it now that you told me, thanks

>>10086558
>probability of absence with absence of evidence is greater than probability of absence with evidence
Did this guy read his own conclusion? He proved that things that don't exist don't have evidence for them, or evidence of existence is evidence against absence.

>>10087035
http://kim.oyhus.no/absence/index.html
>How people react to the proof tells a lot about them.
>>Sane people think it is interesting and often useful.
>>Smart educated ones think it is fascinating.
>>Educated or accredited ones without smarts tend to wrongly claim there is something wrong with the proof, while misunderderstanding it.
>>Typical misunderstandings are of the axioms, what their logic mean, which logic system is used, missing that this is probability theory, etc.
>>And some use emotions against it, which of course is emotional and not sane.
Which one are you?

>>10088022
Do you understand the conclusion? By the definition of evidence given in the beginning the conclusion means that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>10088089
Use the terms he defined. P(absence | no evidence) > P(absence | evidence)

>>10088101
Definition of A is evidence for B: P(B|A) > P(B|¬A)

Substitute A with ¬A and and B with ¬B and you have the conclusion.

>>10088122
It's "evidence" but it's not "evidence" like anyone would use the term in a meaningful way. Absence of evidence is a necessary condition for absence, but it doesn't prevent existence.

>>10086558
I slap people with my cock.

>>10088170
I see no evidence for your cock, so that's evidence that it doesn't exist.

>>10088161
There are two ways the word evidence is used: as a synonym for proof or as that which increases the probability of something being true without necessarily being proof. For example in a court of law you need a preponderance of evidence to show that someone is guilty, not just any piece of evidence. This means they evidence in a court of law is not necessarily synonymous with proof.

In the context of empirical investigation, there is no such thing as absolute proof. That is where the phrase is commonly applied. The phrase was most famously deployed in response to the failure to find evidence of aliens and WMDs.

>Absence of evidence is a necessary condition for absence
That's not true. A picture of someone at the scene of a crime is evidence that they're guilty, but they can still be innocent.

>>10088184
>A picture of someone at the scene of a crime is evidence that they're guilty, but they can still be innocent.
That's really messy when we're talking about this mathematically. What would you say P(guilty | picture) is?

>>10088178
You have evidence that you don't have the means to gather evidence, therefore it is null. It cannot be evaluated.

Also, when its sheer mass is impacting your person it will leave lasting evidence of its existence. Whether you have the ability to decode these artifacts and their genesis, and map them to their causative agent, is another matter entirely. You can slap someone with your cock, but you cannot understand their being slapped by your cock for them.

>>10088195
Does anyone else here have evidence for your cock existing? No? Seems like an absence to me.

>>10088199
Do you have evidence they don't? Do you have evidence I don't have evidence that they have evidence?

>>10088201
There's an absence of evidence that anyone has evidence.

>>10088203
There is no evidence that there's an absence of evidence.

dead

>>10088206
How deep can we go here?

>>10088194
It's greater than P(guilty|Absence of picture). That's all that's needed.

>>10088216
We would ask ourselves if we have evidence that we have any evidence, and what evidence we have that we have this evidence.

>>10088220
So we have it. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, but it's not a really meaningful statement with the usual discussions it comes up in because it's not necessarily very strong evidence and definitely not absolute evidence.

>>10088233
It can be very strong, it depends on context. I would say that the failure to find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq despite years of searching by the UN and the US military is pretty strong evidence of their absence since the probability of years of searching finding evidence if there were WMDs is pretty high. So it can be very dangerous to ignore the absence of evidence.

>>10088246
My point was that this line almost always only ever comes up with two people who want to be 100% right (I've only ever heard it and its opposite from online atheists trying to disprove all religion at once with it or YECs arguing with them). So it's useless for them, since it can't actually reach a probability of 1 or 0.

>>10088268
I don't see how it being used fallaciously has any bearing on it's meaning or usefulness. If one strongly expects god's presence to be evident, then the lack of evidence is strong evidence of god's absence.

>>10088246
Bringing up junk like Iraq is exactly what this kind of stuff is for. Look here is some bs math that I'm going to use on dummies to sway their opinion. discovery is made by finding evidence when there was none found before. Evidence is something that you have or do not have. Not something that is or is not. Seems like the majority here can agree that this is bullcrap and should be spread around only if your goals are to make the world a summer place. This garbage is used for politics and to argue whether a god exist. easier to ask the god proponents: "who made god?" That takes the argument that all this stuff can't come from nothing and uses it so they can prove themselves stupid. I am a fan of the idea of god or meaning in life, but you can't just magic and math to battle common sense. If there is some god there has to be an explanation and you can probably make him bleed.

>>10088318
I don't see any logical counterargument in your post and I don't even think you understand what was proven since you don't realize this is about having evidence, not "evidence existing." Try cutting out the babble and forming premises and a conclusion.

>>10088342
Math. A lack of evidence represented by the number zero. What am I missing. This is a political tool.

>>10088342
No logical counter argument is evidence that you may be wrong

>>10088404
>>10088417
Are you mentally ill?

>>10088431
Another thing there is no evidence for. How is no data evidence. Didn't they finally detect gravity waves after there was lacking evidence for a long time?

>>10088557
Actually we had evidence of gravitational waves before the LIGO detection, we just didn't detect them. It had to do with the discovery of the first binary pulsar in the 1970s.
I don't really care about the argument, just wanted to add that little fact

>>10088557
>Let's test the claim that there is a leprechaun in this box
>open the lid and look
>I don't see a leprechaun anywhere in the box
>ignore that, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, keep looking

So. Yes when your dad was a kid: there was no evidence of gravitational waves. And yep. You don't know what is in the box till you open it. If you can't open you don't know. You cand disprove a negative. Probably not a leprechaun though.

>>10088583
You are confusing knowing/proving something with probability/evidence.

>>10086558
Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It’s just not very strong evidence (let alone proof). People have this strange notion that evidence equals certainty.

Kinda like folks said during that whole Supreme Court thing that there was no evidence of rape. There was evidence, her testimony if nothing else. Now is that convincing evidence? No clue. But it is evidence in the same way that his denial is evidence to the contrary (which wouldn’t be present if, for instance, he never denied it and remained silent on it).

Evidence comes in a variety of strengths and flavors. Just because you have SOME supporting evidence that does not mean that you are right. If you scoured the entire solar system for extraterrestrial life and found none then that isn’t conclusive evidence that there isn’t any but depending on the thoroughness of your search it can be strong evidence.

>>10086558
Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence.
I look in my living room. There is no tiger in the room. I have evidence of the absence of a tiger. I DO NOT HAVE absence of evidence of a tiger being there, I have EVIDENCE OF THE ABSENCE of a tiger being there.
The order of the words are not commutative. Therefore, OP is brainlet bullshit.

>>10086558
>logic
not science or mathematics please leave and do not come back. I'm sorry you made the poor and selfish decision to get a philosophy or economics degree instead of going into mathematics or physics like a human would.

>>10088631
Logic is a super-category over mathematics, which is a superset over all science.

>>10088592
Proof is for math. Neither you nor I know a thing. Probably is guessing. Evidence makes you a better guesser. Are you confusing nouns with things?

>>10088670
Math is a supercategory over probability.
The words are not Abelian as I have shown here >>10088624
thus the OP is wrong.

>>10088624
> I have evidence of the absence of a tiger.
Yes, because you found an absence of evidence for the tiger. You're making a distinction without a difference.

>I DO NOT HAVE absence of evidence of a tiger being there
So what evidence of the tiger being there did you find?

>>10088670
You do realize this thread is about evidence and probability, correct?

>>10088688
Math is used to represent the probability found in nature. It is not the other way around. Is it?

>>10088728
>Yes, because you found an absence of evidence for the tiger. You're making a distinction without a difference.
No, you are not making the distinction when it is so clear.
I look in my room, find a plethora of evidence that a tiger is not there. This is "evidence of absence".
The "absence of evidence" would be; "I have not looked in my living room at all yet and thus I do not have any evidence of a tiger being there or not - I have absence of evidence".
These are not the same thing. A ∘ B =/= B ∘ A, they are not Abelian, the statements are not equivalent, thus the OP must be wrong.

>>10086805
It's more like
>days I didn't see him masturbating in his room are more likely to have had an absence of masturbation than days I did see him masturbate in his room
which is obviously true, but it also sounds really stupid when put into English.

>>10088730
I don't think that "equation is used for evidence or probabilities. It is used to force a philosophical opinion. And yes, I'm using the common misuse of the word philosophy

>>10088744
>I look in my room, find a plethora of evidence that a tiger is not there. This is "evidence of absence".
Yes, it's also an absence of evidence that the tiger is there.

>The "absence of evidence" would be; "I have not looked in my living room at all yet and thus I do not have any evidence of a tiger being there or not - I have absence of evidence".
If you have no evidence of a tiger being there then by the proof in the OP you also have evidence of a tiger not being there. If you have no evidence of a tiger not being there then by the proof in the OP you have evidence of a tiger being there.

is the math right? Is the language an inaccurate reading of the "data"

>>10086725
There's a difference between theories and facts you diehard cum soaking faggot.

Go back and write a programm in c that prints 6000000 times nigger like I did.

#include <sdio.h>
#define N 6000000

int main()
{
int i = 1;
while (i <= N)
{
printf("NIGGER\n");
i++;
}
return 0;
}

>>10088746
I don't think it is if you don't use it fallaciously.

>>10088755
>Yes, it's also an absence of evidence that the tiger is there.
No there isn't, the evidence isn't like "negative" or something, there is evidence that a tiger isn't there.
If you look and dont see anything, that is positive evidence that it isn't there.
If you've never looked/haven't looked at a sufficient amount of places, then you can't say one way or the other.
Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence. If you have an absence of evidence you've not looked yet - you have no evidence, which is a string of binary data. If you HAVE looked and there is nothing there, you STILL have binary data, just the data/evidence shows there isn't any of whatever it is you were looking for.
Either way, the data still exists, and that is "evidence of absence" whereas if you don't have any data, that is "absence of the evidence (data)"
These are not the same thing, you can't treat them the same way.

>>10088744
So when SETI failed to find evidence of aliens, and the US failed to find evidence of WMDs, those were not absences of evidence? You are not talking about the same thing as the phrase being discussed.

>>10088764
They did not have sufficient evidence, it would be equivalent to me not looking in my room at all.
In this case, we can say "I don't know one way or the other" just like when I haven't looked in my room yet, I dont know one way or the other whether my brother is in it. I have absence of evidence.
If I look through a sufficient amount of my room, and there is no brother there, I have evidence of the absence of him - the binary string representing the data of the things in my room shows there is no brother in it. I have "evidence of the absence".

>>10088763
>No there isn't, the evidence isn't like "negative" or something, there is evidence that a tiger isn't there.
What evidence?

>If you look and dont see anything, that is positive evidence that it isn't there.
Yes, the absence of evidence of something being there is positive evidence that it isn't there.

>If you've never looked/haven't looked at a sufficient amount of places, then you can't say one way or the other.
If you don't have enough evidence, then you can't say one way or the other. But that doesn't mean what you have is not evidence.

>If you have an absence of evidence you've not looked yet
The times when this phrase is applied is specifically when you have looked and failed to find what you're looking for. You're both logically and empirically wrong.

>>10088770
>They did not have sufficient evidence, it would be equivalent to me not looking in my room at all.
Not having sufficient evidence is not the same thing as an absence of evidence. You just said that an absence of evidence is having no evidence at all one way or the other. Which is it?

If the former then you admit that the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. If the latter then you admit your interpretation has nothing to do with the phrase being discussed.

>>10087681
Do you have some better way of formalizing your epistemology? If you don't, then fuck off.

Country A you checked for WMDs, and you found good evidence of the presence of them.
Country B you have not been able to check to any meaningful extent.
Which country are you going to bet does NOT have WMDs? You have to choose one.

>>10088648
>using cheap newspeak to try to associate epistemology with science
lol fuck off faggot

>>10088775
>The times when this phrase is applied is specifically when you have looked and failed to find what you're looking for. You're both logically and empirically wrong.
So you have gotten tied up in the semantics.
Not having evidence, or "absence of evidence", is literally "I do not have any evidence one way or the other". Having evidence that something is not there is not the same thing.
>>10088777
No. Based on your logic, not looking is the same thing as looking and not finding.
This is obviously absurd. You're wrong.

>>10088790
I'm not using "cheap new speak" that is the structure of the categories of knowledge.
Epistemology ⊃ logic ⊃ mathematics ⊃ empiricism ("science").

hey look another retarded philosophag thread that should be moved to >>>/his/

i didn't read it, but is it a god thread again?

>>10088792
>So you have gotten tied up in the semantics.
You're the one who attacked the semantics!

>Not having evidence, or "absence of evidence", is literally "I do not have any evidence one way or the other".
Not in this context, get over it.

>Based on your logic, not looking is the same thing as looking and not finding.
How so?

And you didn't respond to the post. Which definition do you choose?

>>10088631
retard

>>10088631
Every thing is science and math. Music, sex, comedy. It is this kind of ranting and raving that got us here today. Language is an obstacle in this thread. Arrogance and the ease of calling someone a retard ( not that you are wrong) is a good way to complicate the communication. Simantics like negative evidence when nomenclature is not what most people are talking about. Science was born from curiosity and a search for meaning. Now that supposed to be exclusive? Science has lost a lot of cred with the average bozo. And the politicians lie to us when they say "numbers don't lie."The challenge for the smartypants should be to teach these idiots. The OP asked for opinions. That's ambitious right there. WMD's keep popping up but do we have an agreed definition of what they are. if this for talking about things or people?

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/71783/evidence-of-absence-absence-of-evidence

>>10088815
>You're the one who attacked the semantics!
I'm not attacking semantics I'm describing the meaning of the sentences.
>Not in this context, get over it.
There is no other context.
>How so?
Because of all the other things I've said already.
If I look and find evidence, I have evidence that there is nothing there - I have "evidence of absence".
If I never look/don't look well enough, I don't have evidence one way or the other - I have "absence of evidence".
This is also how we can say that whether or not there are other alien civilizations out there is still up for debate - we have not checked even close to the amount of the universe to sufficiently say one way or the other. We have "absence of evidence". But to say this "absence of evidence" is "evidence of the absence" of aliens, is absurd.
These statements are not the same thing and they don't mean the same thing. We can't treat them the same way and the underlying concepts that the words are conveying aren't the same.

>>10088947
>I'll assume that it is standard to describe the observation of A as "evidence"; given the conditions of the poster this seems to be at least somewhat reasonable. However, then "absence of evidence" does not mean observing ¬A
It doesn't say that observing A is evidence, it says that A is evidence. What a dumb response.

>>10088947
>th.stackexchange.com/questions/71783/evidence-of-absence-absence-of-evidence
Ok. So it looks like a language deal. I see she same stuff there except minus all the go f yourself.

>>10088974
All languages are isomorphic, you cant say "oh it's just a language deal" and ignore the criticism when that is the whole point.

>>10086558
If you've looked for evidence of something and haven't found it, of course that's evidence it doesn't exist. Evidence Y only means "X is more likely in a world in which Y is true than a world in which Y is false, all else being equal".

So if course it's evidence, it's just usually weak evidence, and it's never proof unless you can also prove you've done an exhaustive search.

>>10088978
Uh. Yes I can. If the math works but we are still discussing this. The fact that language is isomorphic is not a fact. That is just saying stuff. Nobody is dumb enough to argue with math. If the are I would love to see it. It is the words that are the hard itch to scratch. Your language is not mine. We try to put our ideas into the heads of others. Double negatives are an example of mathematicians backseat driving language.

>>10088954
>I'm not attacking semantics I'm describing the meaning of the sentences.
What do you think semantics is? You're not describing the meaning of the phrase correctly since it is not used in the way you describe.

>There is no other context.
You know there is. SETI and the search for WMDs are not a lack of evidence one way or the other. You're not responding to this because you know your argument fails.

>If I look and find evidence, I have evidence that there is nothing there - I have "evidence of absence".
>If I never look/don't look well enough, I don't have evidence one way or the other - I have "absence of evidence".
If I have a dog I have a pet. If I have a cat I have a pet. So by your logic having a dog and having a cat are the same thing.

Also, you need to clarify what you mean by "never look/don't look well enough" in terms of the argument. What is P(A) in this case?

>This is also how we can say that whether or not there are other alien civilizations out there is still up for debate
What about the argument implies it's still not up for debate? Evidence does not necessarily settle a debate. This is simple stuff.

>We have "absence of evidence". But to say this "absence of evidence" is "evidence of the absence" of aliens, is absurd.
It's mathematically proven. It increases the probability of the absence of aliens. Your naive intuition and confusion of evidence for sufficient evidence is not a proof. But I'm glad you finally admitted that SETI is an absence of evidence.

>These statements are not the same thing and they don't mean the same thing.
They are tautologically equivalent.

>>10087908
advanced animals can develop naturally, so a Tesla can be formed using only natural processes.

>>10086558
where can I learn about this logic stuff?
help a brainlet out.

>>10086558
Thanks, I hate it.

Talking is fun but, we are solid on the math right? But not the words. Is "data and "evidence" the same thing in this case? Can't some mathy person work out symbolic logic for sentence, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?"

>>10086558
Christfags btfo.

>>10089030
I went way back to see what this thread in a thread was about. Yep. People are natural. It's ok when beavers fuck up a river but it is wrong when humans do it. Bullcrap. Why was this formula created. To shove up the ass of church people. Because you goofballs, (and I'm ashamed to be one of you) are trying to say' "because magic!" Any creator should have to follow the rules of physics. Even your own stupid comic book has Jacob wrestling an angel and doing a fine job of it. Why did the angel not just abracadabra his ass?

>>10089237
Poor brainlet actually believes that, too, I fear :(

>>10087785
There's plenty of evidence: fuckton of stars, fuckton of planets, fuckton of organic material.

>>10089261
Not disagreeing but there is also plenty of evidence that we are alone based on the null data that we have attempted and failed to find ET. What I have learned from 4chan today, is that "evidence" is a word that is used to show I'm right and you're wrong

>>10086558
Optimized.

Optimized.

>>10089318
Now I can not understand it even better!

Definition 2 is literally assuming what you are trying to prove

>>10089381
Shhh, begging the question is perfectly legit logic, anon.

>>10087864
What if you just don't have the tools to capture the evidence?

>>10089314
One specific evidence may be missing, but there's plenty of other evidence.

>>10087849
>Consciousness and the idea of the universe starting from nothing are valid reasons to suggest that we might have been created
The number of things that have been attributed to god because we didn't understand them has been shrinking over time. There's no reason to continue believing god is necessary for the things we haven't crossed off the list yet.

>>10089030
Are there any natural processes that can form a Tesla?
May as well argue that Tigers exist through natural processes so it must be possible for an adult Tiger to be formed through a natural process that skips the adolescent stage, or from a camel.

>>10089442
Humans are natural. The man is right. But tigers skipping adolescence are not... unless we make it happen. Then it would be natural. Not sure I get the analogy

Are ant hills natural? Maybe they are shooting for a Tesla but they haven't got there yet.
So, is this math like 1 divided by 1 is greater than 1 divided by zero? What if zero is ten but you haven't found out yet. Explain to my dumbass

>>10089427
This one agrees. We should not use god as some excuse for what we donot understand. But that doesn't mean that there is a reason to disbelieve in god. We may someday be surprised at what we find.

>>10089381
How?

>>10088999
All formal languages are isomorphic to a finite automata. All regular expressions are isomorphic to a UMC. This is proven, and it is math. It is not just "saying stuff". You don't seem to even understand mathematics or computer science and yet you're trying to make arguments about these topics.
>>10089015
>What do you think semantics is? You're not describing the meaning of the phrase correctly since it is not used in the way you describe.
They are used exactly in the way I described
>You know there is. SETI and the search for WMDs are not a lack of evidence one way or the other. You're not responding to this because you know your argument fails.
I have already responded to this.
>If I have a dog I have a pet. If I have a cat I have a pet. So by your logic having a dog and having a cat are the same thing.
I never said this and this is not an accurate logical comparison.
Having said that, having a dog and having a cat are the same thing in terms of having a pet.
>Also, you need to clarify what you mean by "never look/don't look well enough" in terms of the argument. What is P(A) in this case?
Never looked means not gathering enough data.
>What about the argument implies it's still not up for debate?
I said it is still up for debate.
We have not checked a sufficient amount of the universe - the amount we've checked is close to 0% (very close to 0%) so we can say we have no evidence one way or the other. If we were to somehow check 95% of the known universe and find no aliens, we have very strong evidence for the absence of aliens. As of now, we have absence of the evidence of aliens one way or the other.
>Evidence does not necessarily settle a debate. This is simple stuff.
This doesn't counter anything I've said.
>It's mathematically proven.
No it isn't.
>It increases the probability of the absence of aliens
It has not even come close.
>They are tautologically equivalent.
No they aren't, at all, and desu you sound stupid for continuing to say so.

>>10090013
>They are used exactly in the way I described
SETI is negative evidence. The search for WMDs is negative evidence. You fail.

>I have already responded to this.
Where?

>I never said this and this is not an accurate logical comparison.
You said that according to my logic not looking is the same thing as looking and not finding, presumably since they're both absences of evidence. So how is that not an accurate comparison?

>Never looked means not gathering enough data.
What does that mean in terms of the argument? Why are you avoiding the question? If "not enough data" does not increase the probability of B then it is not evidence in the first place and your point is moot. If it does then it is evidence of B and its absence is evidence of the absence of B. It's very simple yet you continue to obfuscate the argument by not clarifying anything.

>I said it is still up for debate.
It's up for debate regardless, since the evidence is weak. What is your point?

>We have not checked a sufficient amount of the universe - the amount we've checked is close to 0% (very close to 0%) so we can say we have no evidence one way or the other.
Close to zero is not zero. Is the probability of SETI finding evidence nonzero, yes or no?

>This doesn't counter anything I've said.
It responds to your implication that the debate would be settled by admitting evidence of absence.

>No it isn't.
Then find a flaw in the proof.

>It has not even come close.
If SETI finding an alien signal increases the probability of aliens then SETI not finding an alien signal decreases the probability of aliens. Yes or no?

>No they aren't, at all, and desu you sound stupid for continuing to say so.
Says the guy denying a mathematical proof.

You're right. It is evidence of absence but not proof

This is just pedantry

If you can't explain it. You don't understand it. The guys with the better math vocabulary here seem to get but hurt when others don't understand the point that they failed to make.

>>10086558
Explain this in plain English please.

>>10086558

what makes you think that abstract logic exists in nature?

mathematic is the best thing we have created to try to describe things, but it is not inherently existing.

>>10090561
If A is evidence of B then the presence of A makes B more likely to be present. This means the presence of A makes B less likely to be absent. This means the absence of A makes B more likely to be absent. This means by our starting premise that the absence of A is evidence of the absence of B. In other words, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>10090612
Would you say that "is" equals "="

>>10090634
In what specific context?

>>10086558
Evidence to whom? Clearly if something leaves no evidence of its existence it does not exist. However, how would you be sure that something left no evidence?

>>10090976
You are pretty good at making since. Drive this beast!

>>10090658
Would "Is" and "=" be the same thing in the specific context that is this post. Where letters that represent variabale numbers are being expressed as words in English. Im sure there is a more mathematical way to say this. If A is zero as some dude said and nobody's said he was wrong. Wouldn't you have infinity on the right side? Can this math stand up to common sense? Is it a play on words?

>>10090976
Evidence to the subject. Probability is a measure of a subject's certainty of a proposition based on the subject's prior knowledge and the data available to the subject. You don't assume that something left no evidence, you are only reasoning based on the evidence you have and the absence of evidence you don't have.

>>10091062
>Would "Is" and "=" be the same thing in the specific context that is this post.
That doesn't explain anything. Which "is" are you talking about?

>If A is zero as some dude said and nobody's said he was wrong.
If P(A) is zero then A does not fall under the definition of "A is evidence of B."

>>10091172
The is in the sentence. "Absence of evidence "is" evidence of absence. So a number theme zero is zero. Which equals "A?"

>>10091219
>The is in the sentence. "Absence of evidence "is" evidence of absence.
It's unnecessary to define "is" as equality since the entire phrase "A is evidence of B" is defined. So you could but I don't see what relevance it has to the topic at hand.

>So a number theme zero is zero. Which equals "A?"
I'm having trouble parsing your English. Are you a native speaker? A and B are not numbers, they are events. Their probabilities are numbers.

>>10090348
>Then find a flaw in the proof.
The proof is that the group structure is not Abelian. A * B =/= B * A therefore proof by contradiction. Your argument is immediately false via the definition of the group.
>If SETI finding an alien signal increases the probability of aliens then SETI not finding an alien signal decreases the probability of aliens. Yes or no?
No, it doesn't decrease the probability.
If SETI only looks at 0.000001% of the known universe and finds nothing, that is equivalent to never looking in the first place and thus finding nothing. There is no evidence there one way or the other.
>Says the guy denying a mathematical proof.
The OP is not a mathematical proof. it's an argument using Bayesian probability. And it's wrong.

>>10091293
That "theme" is a fat thumbed auto corrected "times." if words have no relevance and letters are not numbers; What have mathematicians to do with this. (Question mark internationally omitted.) what are the practical applications of this? To deny God, unicorns, gravitational waves, giant squid, electrons, and ET. ?

Yep. This is atheism disguised as math. Poor E.T got caught in the crossfire.

>>10091309
>The proof is that the group structure is not Abelian.
LOL. So if "A of B is B of A" is not true in every case, it can't be true in any case? Jesus Christ.

>A * B =/= B * A therefore proof by contradiction.
Non-Abelian does not mean A * B =/= B * A in every case, brainlet. The negation of "every case" is "not all cases" not "no cases."

>No, it doesn't decrease the probability.
It does by the proof which you have failed to find a flaw in. The only thing you've shown is that you can't do basic logic.

>If SETI only looks at 0.000001% of the known universe and finds nothing, that is equivalent to never looking in the first place and thus finding nothing. There is no evidence there one way or the other.
If SETI could find alien signals in 0.000001% of the universe, then its failure to find alien signals in 0.00001% increases the chance that aliens are do not exist. There is no way around this fact.

>The OP is not a mathematical proof. it's an argument using Bayesian probability.
Distinction without a difference.

>And it's wrong.
How is it wrong?

>>10091324
>if words have no relevance and letters are not numbers
What about my post implies words have no relevance? The letters are simply variables that can represent what their definition allows.

>What have mathematicians to do with this.
Do you have any actual criticism of the argument or are you just going to complain about its form? The math is simply an expedient way to represent the concepts of the argument.

>what are the practical applications of this?
To illustrate the fallacy of ignoring negative evidence.

>>10091365
You said that "no relevance " you said that you don't know what "is" means. Negative evidence is not the same as null data. You are contributing the bs here and I'm not the only target. You talk out your arse. More shit would get done here. This ain't about picking fights with people. Or is it?

>>10091434
>You said that "no relevance "
I said that defining "is" as equality has no relevance. If you disagree I suggest you explain it.

>you said that you don't know what "is" means.
No I didn't.

>Negative evidence is not the same as null data.
The failure of SETI and the search for WMDs is not the same as null data.

>You are contributing the bs here and I'm not the only target. You talk out your arse. More shit would get done here. This ain't about picking fights with people. Or is it?
There is no substance in your posts. What are you babbling about?

>>10091172
Because math is a language. And the words are a transition or mistranslation of the math. SETI has obtained data (with null results) and the search for WMD failed to collect any evidence from whatever data it did or did not obtain. Any thinking idiot can see the flaw in the OP statement. As interpreted by common language and its usage which is not determined by math or English teachers. It is a construct of the collective English speaking population. I guessing a lot of the math geeks aren't so great with verbal communication.

WMD is not a good example because it can be defined ambiguously.

>>10091494
>SETI has obtained data (with null results) and the search for WMD failed to collect any evidence from whatever data it did or did not obtain.
You still don't understand the argument after all this time. It's very simple:

If SETI could have found something that increased the chance of aliens existing, then the fact that it didn't increases the chance that aliens don't exist. Do you agree or disagree?

If the search for WMDs could have found something that increased the chance of WMDs existing in Iraq, then the fact that it didn't increases the chance that WMDs didn't exist in Iraq. Do you agree or disagree?

>Any thinking idiot can see the flaw in the OP statement.
You certainly are a thinking idiot.

>As interpreted by common language and its usage which is not determined by math or English teachers.
The failures of SETI and the search for WMDs are absences of evidence according to usage of the phrase. Are you done yet?

>>10091499
The proof works regardless of how you define WMDs.

>>10091521
Agreed to all.

>>10091559
Then you agree that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>10091577
Nope. That's dumb

>>10091590
The failure of the searches is an absence of evidence by definition and by common usage of the phrase. So you agree, thanks.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

>>10091611
People say obviously and evidently with interchangeability. Now they say literally when it is not literal. A lack of evidence is not evidence. I don't know about ya'll but proof is only a word that should be thrown around in math or certain trades. Otherwise you are dumbass and are misusing the word. I don't give a fuck if god exists. But the OP algebra is dumb as it will be weaponized in the hands of dummies.

>>10091665
>People say obviously and evidently with interchangeability.
So what?

>A lack of evidence is not evidence.
An absence of evidence is evidence. The proof is right there. If you have an argument against it I suggest you present it, otherwise fuck off.

>>10091608
You seem way outnumbered in your idea of common usage according to the posts on this thread. Do the math. That's ok most people are brainless animals.

>>10091678
>You seem way outnumbered in your idea of common usage according to the posts on this thread.
You seem to have no response to the basic fact that the phrase is used this way and is well known for its use this way. Reality is not up for a vote.

>>10088760
NIGGER.c(1) : fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'sdio.h': No such file or directory

>>10091355
>LOL. So if "A of B is B of A" is not true in every case, it can't be true in any case? Jesus Christ.
Thats what Abelian means, a group can be abelian. In this case, the group is not abelian.
>Non-Abelian does not mean A * B =/= B * A in every case, brainlet.
Yes it does by definition of a non-commutative group. In this case, English grammar is non-commutative.
"I ate the cow" (subject I, verb ate, object cow) is not the same as "the cow ate I" (subject cow, verb ate, object I) and no pseudo-argument using Bayesian probability (which is, btw, shit compared to Frequentest probability) will change this fact. These sentences are different under Chomsky hierarchy, and therefore you're argument is wrong off the bat. Your only refuge is to go "b-but everyone uses it this way!!" which is both irrelevant, as well as WRONG (as no one but you says absence of evidence = evidence of absence).
>The negation of "every case" is "not all cases" not "no cases."
Obviously. Makes no difference in this case.
>It does by the proof which you have failed to find a flaw in. The only thing you've shown is that you can't do basic logic.
It's not a proof. Stop calling it a proof it makes you look pathetic.
>If SETI could find alien signals in 0.000001% of the universe, then its failure to find alien signals in 0.00001% increases the chance that aliens are do not exist. There is no way around this fact.
No it doesn't.
>Distinction without a difference.
The distinction has a huge difference
>How is it wrong?
I've already explained it multiple times

>>10092572
Jesus Christ you're dumb. Abelian requires that for all a, b in A, a • b = b • a. Non-Abeliam requires that for *some* a, b in A, a • b =/= b • a. Example: integers and subtraction is non-Abelian since 2-1 =/= 1-2. Your argument is akin to saying that 1-1 =/= 1-1 since the integers and subtraction is non-Abelian!

>"I ate the cow" (subject I, verb ate, object cow) is not the same as "the cow ate I" (subject cow, verb ate, object I) and no pseudo-argument using Bayesian probability (which is, btw, shit compared to Frequentest probability) will change this fact.
I ate the cow not being equal to the cow ate I has no more bearing on the topic at hand than 1-2 not equaling 2-1 has on 1-1=1-1. The proof shows that the definition of evidence implies that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Your utterly retarded non-understanding of Abelian groups is a non-sequitur.

>Obviously. Makes no difference in this case.
Then your argument falls apart since non-Abelian groups can contain commutative elements.

>It's not a proof. Stop calling it a proof it makes you look pathetic.
It's a proof. If It wasn't you would have pointed out the flaw by now.

>No it doesn't.
It does, see the proof in the OP.

>The distinction has a huge difference
It's a proof using Bayesiam probability, there is no relevant difference.

>I've already explained it multiple times
You've explained that you don't understand what non-Abelian means.

>>10086558
Sagan is a meme.